New Delhi: Industrialist Anil D. Ambani has filed an undertaking/compliance affidavit before the Supreme Court reiterating that he will not leave the country without prior permission of the apex court in connection with the ongoing probe into alleged large-scale bank loan frauds linked to Reliance Communications Ltd (RCOM) and its group entities.
The affidavit has been filed in a pending public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored probe into the allegations that more than Rs 1.50 lakh crore of debt of the Ambani-led RCOM group has been written off and that funds were siphoned off through multiple shell companies.
The affidavit formally reiterates the oral undertaking recorded before the apex court on February 4, when senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on his behalf, assured that Ambani would not leave India without prior permission of the top court.
“By way of the present affidavit, I formally reiterate and place on record the said statement by virtue of the present affidavit as an undertaking before this Hon’ble Court,” Ambani stated.
He further deposed on oath: “That I have not left India since July 2025, i.e., since the inception of the present investigations, and presently have no plan or intention to travel outside India.”
He added that if any requirement of foreign travel arises, he would seek prior leave and permission of the Supreme Court before undertaking such travel.
Asserting that he is not a flight risk, the affidavit states: “In view of the above conduct, undertakings, and continued cooperation, it is evident that I am not a flight risk and have no intention, whatsoever, to evade the process of law.”
Ambani also stated that he has been fully cooperating with the investigating agencies. “That I, with utmost bona fide, have been fully cooperating with the investigating agencies in connection with the ongoing investigations and continue to extend complete cooperation,” the affidavit reads.
Referring to the ongoing probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, he stated that examination under Section 50 of the PMLA is presently being conducted during the pendency of proceedings before the apex court.
“That I have been summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement to appear on 26.02.2025 and I undertake to appear and join the investigation on the said date,” the affidavit said, while also undertaking to fully cooperate with the authorities and “preventing any suggestion of evasion or selective presentation of facts.”
Clarifying his role in the group companies under scrutiny, Ambani submitted: “That I respectfully state that my role in the concerned companies had been that of a Non-Executive Director only, and I was not involved in the day-to-day management or operational affairs of the said companies.”
In the affidavit sworn on February 18, he stated: “That the present affidavit is being filed to ensure clarity, completeness, and procedural transparency in the judicial record with an intent that this Hon’ble Court remains seized of the broader issues arising from the same factual matrix.”
Ambani’s undertaking comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s February 4 order, where a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant had expressed serious concern over an “unexplained delay” by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in probing alleged bank loan frauds involving public funds estimated at around Rs 40,000 crore.
The CJI Kant-led Bench had directed the ED to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of senior officers and asked both Central agencies to take the investigation to its “logical conclusion” in a time-bound manner, while making it clear that no coercive or harsh orders were being passed at that stage.
During the hearing, apprehensions were raised by advocate Prashant Bhushan that the key accused could flee the country before completion of the probe, following which an undertaking not to travel abroad without apex court permission was recorded.
The Supreme Court had also directed the ED and the CBI to file detailed status reports on the progress of their investigations and questioned why only a single FIR had been registered despite complaints from multiple lenders, observing that each complaint constitutes a separate transaction warranting independent examination.
(IANS)
